Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40112233›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025

Large Language Models as Decision-Making Tools in Oncology: Comparing Artificial Intelligence Suggestions and Expert Recommendations.

Loic Ah-Thiane, Pierre-Etienne Heudel, Mario Campone, Marie Robert, Victoire Brillaud-Meflah, Caroline Rousseau, Magali Le Blanc-Onfroy, Florine Tomaszewski, Stéphane Supiot, Tanguy Perennec and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. AI assistance in tumor multidisciplinary teams.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Loic Ah-ThianeDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4978-1912
Pierre-Etienne HeudelDepartment of Medical Oncology, Center Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2155-549X
Mario CamponeDepartment of Medical Oncology, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Marie RobertDepartment of Medical Oncology, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Victoire Brillaud-MeflahDepartment of Surgical Oncology, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Caroline RousseauDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0455-0523
Magali Le Blanc-OnfroyDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Florine TomaszewskiDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Stéphane SupiotDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2094-1708
Tanguy PerennecDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1118-2271
Augustin MervoyerDepartment of Radiotherapy, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Jean-Sébastien FrenelDepartment of Medical Oncology, ICO Rene Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5273-0561

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in generating appropriate treatment options for patients with early breast cancer on the basis of their medical records. MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective study using anonymized medical records of patients with BC presented during multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) between January and April 2024. Three generalist artificial intelligence models (Claude3-Opus, GPT4-Turbo, and LLaMa3-70B) were used to generate treatment suggestions, which were compared with experts' decisions. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate suggestions from the LLMs, compared with the reference experts' decisions. The secondary outcome was the LLMs' performances (F1 score and specificity) in generating appropriate suggestions for each treatment category.

resultsThe rates of appropriate suggestions were 86.6% (97/112), 85.7% (96/112), and 75.0% (84/112) for Claude3-Opus, GPT4-Turbo, and LLaMa3-70B, respectively. No significant difference was found between Claude3-Opus and GPT4-Turbo (

conclusionLLMs, particularly Claude3-Opus and GPT4-Turbo, demonstrated promising accuracy in suggesting appropriate adjuvant treatments for patients with early BC on the basis of their medical records. Although LLMs showed limitations in validating surgery and indicating genomic tests, their performance in other treatment modalities highlights their potential to automate and augment decision making during MDTs. Further studies with fine-tuned LLMs and a prospective design are needed to demonstrate their utility in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingMedical OncologyFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40112233
PMCPMC11949217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.